When you say Retirement Pension is based on how many years you work and much you are paying in...

Does this refer to Government Pension ? ... as I thought in the U.K Employees all paid in the same and obtained the same amount on retirement...

I was talking about State Pensions, the only ones that cover all workers in Portugal.

In Portugal, every worker pays 11% of their salary to the Social Security, every employer pays 23% (I think) of the worker's salary, so someone that gets 1000€ per month gives 110€ from those 1000€ to the Social Security, while the employer gives 230€.

The minimum number of years prevents people from getting retirement pensions too early (retirement is only at 67 years old) and how much people paid (directly related to how big their salary was) compensates those that paid more, which, to me, is a little unfair.

The positive side is that everybody has almost free health care, paid by everybody's contributions.

Quote

It is only on a Private (and maybe a Company) Pension that you can pay in more as far as I was aware !

As far as I understand it, private pension funds work like a mix of the Portuguese system and the insurance system, people can pay more or less and get more or less coverage, according to how much they pay, but as I'm not interested in subscribing one of those systems I never thought of seeing how it works.

As far as I know, we don't have company pensions, unless it's state company, as state companies have a Social Security of their own.

Yes I would be surprised if such a set of statisics was not available somewhere that one can believe.. and that its not some Govt misleading info...

If you don't trust government data then you wouldn't be able to get trusted data, as that's the type of data only governments can get, as it needs a large data collection, something that only the state can do.

I don't remember the exact demographics, but women live an average of 10 years longer than men; the group that gets the least out of retirement in the US are black men; on average they die within 1-2 years of retiring

Logged

Look closely: See clearly: Think deeply; and Choose wisely...Trolls are crunchy and good with ketchup... Seekers Domain

from my perspective.3%,suicides and accidents.most in 18-25.then long stretch with 50ish being cancer.70 being hearts.50% dead buy 75.this should go down as radar has been outed as culprit.white sugar being next primary poison.vaccines being third killer.doctors killing out of ignorance being number 4.imho

As a quick update on one thing that I refeered to about a link that I posted... that I thought was telling what % may had died at age 65 and 85 years....

I referred to figures of about 18/20% at 65 and 6% at 80 or 85....

I think after re reading that it meant that it meant that it was the amount of extra years that one would live to make it to somewhere between the age of 80 to 90 yrs old.

In ref to your comments ArMaP...

I suppose that I should mention that I have never really studied the Pension system... When I was younger I just left it to my past employers and the Govt when I used to trust them !...

and I thought that unless I was willing to pay into my own Private Pension which I sort of was later a bit wary about during my past years... that I would only study pensions more nearer middle age...

or when I got around to thinking that I wanted to know more.

So I have forgot some of the specific details that I was at one time made aware about..

The other thing is, during some of the mass unemployment times in the UK... Thinking about Pensions was not a priority.. and one may even question if it was worth considering as maybe they did not think that they will live long enough to get to pension age !..

For some people..Maybe if one makes it, its a bonus ! at least in terms of their extra time added to their life in years...but they may not have gone about creating best pension options or ways to obtain money to best enjoy those later years...

...and as discussed... a set % of people will not make it and pay in and not obtain the benefits...

so maybe taking out a pension can be a 50 % or more gamble.. (I wonder what the % really is in reality if its worked out mathamatically )

Its great if it all worked out if you make it..and you are able to get a good pension, no doubt...

Those who did not mamage to do the best optons for a good pension may well regret it..

Also there was some years where I did think that the economy was going to decline... certainly between 2000 to 2009..

in which pensions could and did fail...

but since 2009... the economy AMAZINLY recovered remarkably since.. especially now since Donald Trump seems to have saved it..maybe !...

(But I think that I have found another reason why it remained strong, but thats another story and only my opinion)

those who are on good high paying private type / or maybe work related pensions , usually have the better paid jobs or were willing to risk paying more into one...

I will have to take a bit of time TRYING! to research various related things if I can.

Initially I want to try to refer to the recent past UK State Pension values....not the New recent ones, that I am at the moment less familiar with.

What may make it now a bit more difficult to research, is that the UK Government have recently changed the system..and it seems on doing a quick search, many of the websites I have come across on a quick search, seem to relate to the new system... so I will have to search for old documents to compare. and try to find the OLDER figures..

But as an example... I seem to recall maybe a mans pension was say about 120 Pounds a week...and I thought that was standard...

BUT

Your description of Workers paying in 11% of their Salary and the Employer paying maybe about 23%, I think I recall seems similar to remind me of an amount to some valued figures that a worker may have paid in the UK..but I am not sure if that was purely based on an individuals earnings (which would vary)

But I THINK...or thought that the % that they pay in.. was not purely based on what they earn..

The reason as I thought that there was a standard state pension for men and Women. where men obtained more.

But whether that is including the part that the Employer pays in.. I am not fully sure ...but if it is a set standard figure for all, I imagine that it would have to be..

Maybe just having a standard pension would not seem to make sense... and your description with (Workers paying 11% Emplrys paying 23% of a persons salary) may seem more how one would imagine it should really be.

This is ONE eg that I found that relates roughly to the figure that I thought that it used to be... (I have not as yet read it and studied it to be sure about the article).... I just came across and skimmed thru the article and found these figures that I seemed to recall.

This article was making some comparison to the Old and New Pension... and I think the new pension only came in last year.

Quote

The Chancellor announced that the basic state pension paid to current pensioners would rise by £3.35 to £119.30 a week in April. The “single-tier” pension paid to those who retire after that date will be £155.65 a week, he said.

Upon having a quick look at Wikapedias version, it all seems quite complex and also maybe updated to the NEWER System.. and Im not sure that I could find a version of the older NAt Ins system to compare.. It would be a bit of a challenege unless one is familiar with it and maybe not a topic many really want to try to read about...

but somewhere it may contain similar figures to what you referred to.... on the 11 % workers pay and the 23% the employer pays in...

I was talking about State Pensions, the only ones that cover all workers in Portugal.

In Portugal, every worker pays 11% of their salary to the Social Security, every employer pays 23% (I think) of the worker's salary, so someone that gets 1000€ per month gives 110€ from those 1000€ to the Social Security, while the employer gives 230€.

The minimum number of years prevents people from getting retirement pensions too early (retirement is only at 67 years old) and how much people paid (directly related to how big their salary was) compensates those that paid more, which, to me, is a little unfair.

The positive side is that everybody has almost free health care, paid by everybody's contributions.

Quote

It is only on a Private (and maybe a Company) Pension that you can pay in more as far as I was aware !

As far as I understand it, private pension funds work like a mix of the Portuguese system and the insurance system, people can pay more or less and get more or less coverage, according to how much they pay, but as I'm not interested in subscribing one of those systems I never thought of seeing how it works.

As far as I know, we don't have company pensions, unless it's state company, as state companies have a Social Security of their own.

What you say is or may be correct..as thinking about it, its only likely that the Government have such data.... but the big question would be are they telling us the truth ! I would think.

Its unlikely that anyone else could obtain the real data... unless somehow they were able to obtain all the death records and record them somehow..which I think would be a huge task.and the Death records departments will probably all be connected to the Govt.

That chart link that you refer to may be what I am looking for..

I may need a bit of study and time to try and look at it...

but thanks for posting it !

Quote

PS..As a quick update on one thing that I refeered to about a link that I posted... that I thought was telling what % may had died at age 65 and 85 years....

I referred to figures of about 18/20% at 65 and 6% at 80 or 85....

I think after re reading that it meant that it meant that it was the amount of extra years that one would live to make it to somewhere between the age of 80 to 90 yrs old.

[/b]

Quote

If you don't trust government data then you wouldn't be able to get trusted data, as that's the type of data only governments can get, as it needs a large data collection, something that only the state can do.

Regardless of being trustworthy or not, see if this is what you want.

PS: you can get an idea of your own data, just think of how many people you know that have died and how old they were.

what you say is probably similar to the UK and many other countries...

I did include benefits in the title of the thread and had not as yet got around to saying much about that ...

but may do so later !

Initially I thought I would start with the Pension system.

But as a very basic eg of the UK system to start with is say what a single person may get on just a very basic level with no other commitments to have to pay for...

is it was about 78 pounds a week...

Obviously if you then consider Married persons that usually or often includes rent or morgage and Children payments... then the system pays out more to them..and it may also pay the Spouse or husband if they also do not work.

No doubt often they may seem to get the better deal..and other benefits...and have obtained more money from the system...

Some single may question is that fair ?

or how long should they pay it out for ?

Some people will have had all their morgage or rent paid for several years...

where as some single people if they have to find somewhere to live..ie they dont have a partner , friend or parents to live with..

can end up on the street very easily ! as they probably cannot even afford to pay any rent..

or at least it was like that at one time..

I dont think its changed for the better as far as I am aware.

and the sytem is now a utter nightmare if your disabled or unfit to work.. on what in the UK is Employment support allowance..

If you dont work but need to clam benefits..your forced to have a medical...

which many may disagree with..

if they disagree that your not unfit for work and you do not agree to sign on to agree your fit enough to work on another type of benefits called either Job Seekers, or Universal credit..

then you will not get any benefits at all ?

Not even a small ammount to pay for food without having to almost beg for it...then your put thru a load of messing about..that is somewhat degrading..

They brought that in after the 2008 Economic crash..

with the suggestion tat they needed to save money..in which it may well be that they have now saved a great deal.. to what they used to pay out as they have now changed the system even more and actualy got more people in work with some new methods.

SOME admittedly seem positive...which surprised me.

But at the same time some of their tatics are out of order in my opinion.

for eg they now want you searching for work almost the same amount of time you would have a 40 hr job..

they want MUCH more time and effort from a Claiment in order for them to obtain benefits...

so much so many people have now taken jobs rather than claim..

The more positive side being that they have increased the minimum wage which may make working a better accepted deal that claiments will now accept better..

but they do also have a lot of jobs that limit ones hours..

so thats the bad side of accepting many jobs that are now available to what they were..

Some Jobs that offer limited hour contracts can be made up with partial benefits.. which may seem a accepted deal..

but you have to be careful..

as if you have some issues and get sacked.. I think in some cass you have to await 26 weeks before you can claim benefits.. or its used to be the case a few years ago...

I need to recheck on that if I can..

PLUS until Brexit and maybe still so... workers are competing wit many Migrants and imigrants who had ( and many still are ) come into the Country..

It never used to be that bad as far as I recall since the 1930s.

but thats another indepth part to the topic..

What I would really like to know as an end result if it was ever possible.... is when taking all the payments made into the system V Benefits and pension etc payouts....

How does it compare I wonder ?

Does the Government have a large pot unaccounted for where they have not informed the public ?

You can get free dental treatment if on benefits.. but if your working you have to pay..

I can only imagine the taxes / National Insurance pays towards it..as far as I am aware..

Quote

NHS FundingNHS Spending 1948/49-2014/15[26]

The systems are 98.8% funded from general taxation and National Insurance contributions, plus small amounts from patient charges for some services.[27][28] About 10% of GDP is spent on health and most is spent in the public sector.[29] The money to pay for the NHS comes directly from taxation. The 2008/9 budget roughly equates to a contribution of £1,980 per person in the UK.[30]

or maybe much of it had been paid for over the past generations..but the Govt may not tell the truth..

but they often have said that the NHS has been in crisis.. and needed more money.

They had made a LOT of cutbacks and changes at varying times over the last 10 to 20 years.. and closed some hospitals or parts of them...

But I found someone who had given an example of our water rates and they claims that they had found out PAST generations have actually paid for the Water treatment we have today....but we still get charged for it..

I added some further comments to my last post that you may had missed.

That's why I avoid doing that, and when I do I marked what I changed so people understand what was changed and don't have to read everything again, looking for differences.

Quote

or maybe much of it had been paid for over the past generations..

Really? We are not talking about a house or a car.

Quote

But I found someone who had given an example of our water rates and they claims that they had found out PAST generations have actually paid for the Water treatment we have today....but we still get charged for it..